"The concept of child protection automatically pits the child against the parent... this thinking leads to the adversarial practice that has dominated the field, but we are finally coming to recognise that 'blood is thicker than child protection services'"
I.K. Berg (1999) from the foreword to Signs of Safety

Introduction
The 'Resolutions' approach originated within the NSPCC in the South West of England during the 1990's by Susie Essex and colleagues Colin Luger, John Gumbleton and Andy Lusk. The techniques developed there for assessing sustained denial cases and producing improved reliability in risk reduction in such families have since been refined and developed through practice.

Susie Essex is consultant to Child and Family Solutions, maintaining an association that has continued since 1998.

The Resolutions approach has been found particularly appropriate to cases where there exist serious concerns about the safety of a child, but carers are unwilling and/or unable to accept culpability for injuries or abuse and perpetrator identity is unknown or uncertain.

A Resolutions assessment does not depend for its effectiveness on admission or clear and demonstrable culpability. However, it does require close co-operation from the carers and their family network, who must be prepared to agree with the aims of the program and willing to engage with it.

The evidence from research and practice is that, utilising the Resolutions approach, it is possible to deliver positive outcomes from so-called denial cases without benefit of an admission and to reduce substantially (though sadly not eliminate) the risk of future harm.

The Resolutions approach can be described as not changing the individual, but changing the context.

The Resolutions approach in summary
In a traditional view of child protection, denial of culpability for abuse means that it is deemed unsafe for children to remain at home with potential abusers. The Resolutions approach considers denial as an important risk factor, but its focus is primarily on present and future safety rather than continuing to try to attribute blame for past events. The Resolutions assessment examines whether the context around the child is capable of change so as to create sufficient safety for families to care for their children.

Central to the Resolutions assessment is the identification, where possible, of a primary carer, sometimes more than one. The assessment looks to identify family strengths and involves carers, other family members and professionals in the co-construction of a support network around the child and the primary carer. The approach attempts to involve as many other helpful and safe adults as possible. The willingness of the primary carer and the support network to respond to the change in context by changing the way they care and monitor the child is essential to progress.

Because of the way the assessment proceeds in stages, with each stage being reviewed and needing approval from professionals and/or the Court before proceeding to the next stage, it is possible for carers to fail to meet the requirements of the assessment. Return of the children to the care of their family will not be recommended in such circumstances.

There may be additional factors that inhibit or prevent progress in the assessment. These include alcohol, substance and drug misuse, mental ill-health, neglect, domestic violence, the potential impact of learning difficulties, and parents' own negative experience of being parented as children. The presence of one or more of these factors does not necessarily make the Resolutions way of working inappropriate, but may require further assessment in or outside the sessions as to the potential impact on the child and their future safety.

The Resolutions approach has now been operational in private practice and clinical settings in the UK for a number of years. It has been shown to address the particular challenges of work with cases of parental denial in child protection cases in a systemic, collaborative way that bypasses the requirement to attribute guilt.

Awareness of the approach is growing within the UK. An increasing number of programs based upon the approach have enabled family reunification to take place within a structure that mobilises the family’s own resources in the protection of its children. Responses revealed within research from families and referring agencies are overwhelmingly positive; these responses have been repeated in our daily working experience.

Example: a Resolutions risk reduction assessment program
A program of assessment based upon the Resolutions approach will of course vary in detail according to the needs of an individual case, but a typical sequence is:

• an initial viability assessment is made as to whether Resolutions is appropriate to the case
• an outline plan for the sessions is discussed with carers and professionals
• the main risk reduction assessment is undertaken in stages, each of which has to be completed to the satisfaction of professionals and/or the Court before moving on to the next
• the assessment proceeds within the legal context as defined by the Court, to underline the seriousness of the concerns
• honesty, openness and transparency in addressing and discussion of the concerns are a requirement of the assessment
• return of children to the care for their parents occurs in stages, reflecting progress that has been made
• a support network of family, friends and professionals is identified, both for the child and the adult(s) entrusted with their primary care
• appropriate members of the professional system are invited (with family members' consent) to observe and perhaps to collaborate in the work
• discussions focus upon clear communication between parents, safe adults within the support network and professionals to enable issues and difficulties to be addressed in an atmosphere of openness
• the assessment concentrates upon evaluating the response of parents and family members to the change in context, and whether these responses will ensure as far as possible future safety for the child
• written 'Family Safety Guidelines' are agreed in collaboration with the carers.
  These Guidelines are the framework that will at all times regulate the conduct of adults who have contact with the child
• the Family Safety Guidelines are explained in a 'Words and Pictures' storyboard for the children
• if the assessment proceeds satisfactorily, by its conclusion the child will be living full-time with the primary carers, monitored closely by the support network and professionals

Carers and families need to be willing to address the concerns even if they do not agree with them. Family members must be prepared to adapt to the change in context, and must demonstrate their willingness to follow the Family Safety Guidelines at all times to ensure the child's future safety.

return to top

The risks of return
The risks to children who have been abused after returning to their families are well known. Research summarised by the DoH (1995) found re-abuse rates ranging from 25-33%, with rates rising in line with the length of follow up. Several recent studies involved only children placed on child protection registers, of which 30% suffered further abuse (Farmer and Owen 1995). Some of the children in this study, however, were only made safe by their removal or that of their abuser. When only the children who remained at home with the alleged abusing parent were considered, the re-abuse rate was 43%. This indicates that re-abuse is endemic and persistent.

Gumbleton (1997) undertook a study to discover whether 38 children in 17 families who had used the Resolutions services subsequently remained protected. This study showed a re-abuse rate of between 3% and 7%, depending upon how the calculations are made.

Separation of children from their families also carries risks, including within the care system itself. Long term alternatives outside the family should only be considered when placement options within the family have been ruled out as being in the best interests of the child.

Parents' experience of the Resolutions approach indicated that they were able to develop a co-operative relationship with the Resolutions workers in nearly all cases, and considered the relationship with the Resolutions worker to be qualitatively better than with other child protection agencies.

Some parents found some of the techniques used uncomfortable or confusing, but nearly all felt they and their children gained from the work. The perceived gains included improved parenting, greater awareness in keeping their children safe, and more openness in their couple relationship. (Gumbleton, 1997)

More recently, studies by Hiles (2002), Luger (2003) and Lean (2012) have confirmed the continuing benefits for children, parents and commissioning professionals where the Resolutions approach is utilised.

The theoretical background to the Resolutions approach
Resolutions practice is influenced by systemic ideas (Jones, 1993) and the work of I.K. Berg and the Family Based Services, Wisconsin, USA that focuses upon support to parents and children following abuse.

In the early 1990's, studies emerged that suggested the best way of protecting children was to support the non-abusing parent (Berliner, 1991; Hooper, 1992; UK Department of Health, 1995), also that children's best interests are usually served by developing a working partnership, both with the child's parents and with significant others based on the child protection concerns (White, Essex and O'Reilly, 1993).

In these studies children stated that they wanted abuse to stop, yet many seemed to want to remain with their families, or wanted their alleged abuser not to leave the home permanently. In cases where children or alleged abusers had left the home temporarily, families often reunited against the wishes of professionals, who may have insufficient evidence to prevent this. (Essex, Gumbleton and Luger, 1996).